Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Personally I'd be for systemd, because other distros are starting to adopt it, and cross-distro consistency in this case would be a great thing. They've already made some good steps regarding cross compatibility with the recent config file changes

I doubt there is plans to change from sysvinit/initscripts anytime soon though.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Dear tomkSome packages are 'orphaned'

Package Listing
Category Name Votes Description Maintainer
system chpst 2.0.0-1 6 Change process state utility. Allows to setuid, lock, chroot, etc. before running a file (from runit) paul.c
system filterunit 0.3.1-1 1 Allows unit tests to be devised for command line programs orphan
daemons runit 2.1.1-2 37 A replacement for sysvinit, and other init schemes, with service supervision orphan
system runit-dietlibc 2.1.1-5 8 A service supervision scheme, compiled with dietlibc bougyman
system runit-run 1.0.2-1 3 A SysV replacement init scheme with parallel start-up and flexible service directories deathsyn
system runit-run-git 20120201-1 3 A SysV replacement init scheme with parallel start-up and flexible service directories deathsyn
daemons runit-scripts 11.6-1 3 Some scripts for runit nikel
daemons runit-services 1.0.0-5 5 A collection of commonly used service directories deathsyn
system runit-services-git 20110919-5 3 A collection of commonly used service directories deathsyn
system sv-helper 0.72-1 3 Helpers to make using runit-run-git or runit-dietlibc easier to use bougyman

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

San2ban wrote:

Dear tomkSome packages are 'orphaned'

Dear San2banThere is nothing stopping you from adopting any orphaned package, and it seems that the maintained runit-run variant has been updated somewhat more recently than the plain version which hasn't been touched since 2009.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

That they're really good pieces of software that didn't need any intervention and hence the maintainer(s) retired out of boredom? =p

Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

I'm not sure any of the "resistance" to systemd has been because of a suspicion that it was inadequate. It seems to me the expressed reluctance to switch to systemd has been just a resistence to change or a desire to stick with the good current initscripts system.

If the "problem" is simply the idea of a change, proposing a different change does not seem to address that problem. Are there any 'real' problems in systemd which runit handles better? The main advantage of systemd (IMHO!) is the uniformity with many other distros. Wouldn't runit be a step in the opposite direction in that respect?

These are mostly rhetorical questions. As one happy to admit some reluctance in accepting systemd, I can say I'd be less interested in yet another init system. I loved the initscripts setup. It worked very well and I had become pretty comfortable with it: I knew how to tweak and adjust it, and I felt in control of my system. Systemd is growing on me. It also works very well, and I'm getting comfortable with it as I learn about it. I'm still looking forward to feeling like I have as much control of my system with it. If I tried runit, I'd still have to learn about that - I suspect there are more resources for me to learn the ins and outs of systemd than there are for runit. That alone makes systemd preferable to runit in my view.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Trilby wrote:

I'm not sure any of the "resistance" to systemd has been because of a suspicion that it was inadequate. It seems to me the expressed reluctance to switch to systemd has been just a resistence to change or a desire to stick with the good current initscripts system.

I think the reluctance that some folks feel in regard to systemd is more because of:

- possible bloat (less simplicity, do one thing well)?- more abstraction?- more reliance on third parties (upstream)?

Not necessarily "change" in general.

(i'm not implying that the points above are/aren't valid, but those are the main concerns i see on these forums).

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

It was developed by Mr. Poettering, who doesn't seem to pay too much attention to the needs or desires of sysadmins. This is also the person who created pulseaudio.

In RedHat and CentOS circles, I feel (totally subjective on my part, from private emails and viewing mailing lists) that the resistance is that it's less robust than the old scripts, the admittedly minor annoyance of, rather than typing, for example, service foo off, systemctl disable foo.service---though that seems minor it demonstrates to many that Mr. Poettering isn't thinking about sysadmins here, as we're generally lazy--but more important, the fact that it does--though it's getting better--sacrifice robustness for speed, and like many things RH now does, seems more aimed at the desktop user than the sysadmin.

Without knowing the actual coding behind rc.conf, I don't know if it's inadequate or not, but it was very nice having one central file to do these things, and it's one of the things that attracted me to Arch in the first place.

On the other hand these days, I'm old and probably more resistant to change than I used to be, so take anything I say with that in mind.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

In Fedora at least in the early stages, it tended to abort an install if certain things weren't working. As I wasn't hit by this, I didn't pay that much attention, but as I understood it (mostly from Fedora forums) it was failing to boot for reasons that shouldn't have made it fail.

Actually, doing a search through Fedora forums, I see that most of those complaints (about robustness) are old.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

scottro wrote:

It was developed by Mr. Poettering, who doesn't seem to pay too much attention to the needs or desires of sysadmins. This is also the person who created pulseaudio.

That attitude is obvious in some of those most vocally protesting systemd (with varying degrees of civility). IMO this line of reasoning is as pointless as it gets, and those who propagate 'this software sucks because of who the author is' or 'this software is going to be awesome because of who the author is' should be actively ignored.

Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

I've come around--after a long period of resistance--to the idea that systemd is arguably simpler than the initscripts. The latter essentially all function as independent programs with the task of then launching yet other programs, all of which it is hoped will continue to work as a single, overarching system indefinitely. Having a unified, distro-agnostic code-base with built-in redundancies (or so I assume; that's at least what I've gleaned from what I've read so far), contributed to by devs from around the Linux ecosphere, seems far better than something which, while having worked for so long, could retroactively be borked and then only fixed with several man-hours of debugging several different complex scripts. Sure, systemd has its own abstraction in the form of *.service files (which, from this end-user's perspective, are relatively simple themselves), but the uniformity seems like an acceptable exchange to me, and in my mind a philosophy is only as valid as its practicality. But again, limited perspective here.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

ANOKNUSA wrote:

I've come around--after a long period of resistance--to the idea that systemd is arguably simpler than the initscripts. The latter essentially all function as independent programs with the task of then launching yet other programs, all of which it is hoped will continue to work as a single, overarching system indefinitely. Having a unified, distro-agnostic code-base with built-in redundancies (or so I assume; that's at least what I've gleaned from what I've read so far), contributed to by devs from around the Linux ecosphere, seems far better than something which, while having worked for so long, could retroactively be borked and then only fixed with several man-hours of debugging several different complex scripts. Sure, systemd has its own abstraction in the form of *.service files (which, from this end-user's perspective, are relatively simple themselves), but the uniformity seems like an acceptable exchange to me, and in my mind a philosophy is only as valid as its practicality. But again, limited perspective here.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Personally, I do not like to wear a 'Red' coloured hat, or a person wearing it. So, will somebody help me in using runit?My question is, if the package is unsupported, still can we go ahead and try it?

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Gentoo has a full working implementation of runit on one of the overlays ( powerman i think ) while thats not much good to you, what is very usefull is that all the service entries are fully implemented debugged and working like a dream. While at gentoo check out their wiki on init comparisons, you will find a very unbiased assesment of systemd vs upstart vs systemv vs openrc.Runit is SUPERB !!! exactly what a init scheme should be i am running it on a gentoo box and have no complaints despite having a very non standard setup and yes i believe the dev did get it right first time, and it is still supported, the devs website is still up, ok very few commits recently but i believe thats because it works and its not used very often. Init should be the simplest part of an os, systemd is not simple I was going to put together a arch partition using runit but i have a more radical notion in mind that i would like to put forward. Why not start the entire system with lxsession ? ie point the kernal handover process to lxsession, once in lxsession all the other tasks can be started in the lxsession properties list, that way i get rid of init altogether, i also ditch pam, consoleki and a bunch of other useless shit ( bearing in mind i work exclusively as root in my system )

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Hello Gemma

I tried to download 'runit' from http://smarden.org/runit/install.htmlSomehow, though 107kB file, I am unable to download it into /package dir as mentioned on the web page. Ofcourse, I had actually created the directory, but this tar ball, .tar.gz, fails to download

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

The url from the AUR PKGBUILD is http://github.com/rubyists/runit-run, so thats a good starting place for the source, BTW whats wrong with the AUR package http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=42731 ?, it looks quite well maintained and they are committing patches as of a few days ago, once runit is correctly installed all thats left is correct service entries, all the obvious ones are covered ( maybe network manager may need checking on a arch specific setup ) while the wierd ones are covered in gentoo's implementation. I use it for everything openrc does including udev and setting up tempfs for example, the whole process is also EXCELLENT for learning how init works and what its for. As a plus the whole thing is in c so we take away the bloody interpreter from the core code, i mean i love BASH but interpreters belong in the past, period.

Re: [Solved]'runit' instead of systemd

Sorry not a clue for arch specific setup, looks like its got a lot of entries already setup so maybe the AUR package is installing it in "full" mode ( in gentoo the standard package just installs runit in "supervisor" mode where it lives beside openrc. the powerman overlay installs it in full mode and fully replaces openrc ) and you should then be good to go. There is no need to delete anything !!! if in full mode rc.conf etc are simply ignored, if not you will lose your daemons You REALLY need to get your head round all the docs you can find and get familiar with all the syntax etc BEFORE you go much further, the ArchWiki and Gentoo Wiki are your friend in this respect